↓ Skip to main content

Measuring and stimulating progress on implementing widely recommended food environment policies: the New Zealand case study

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
17 X users

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Measuring and stimulating progress on implementing widely recommended food environment policies: the New Zealand case study
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12961-018-0278-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefanie Vandevijvere, Sally Mackay, Boyd Swinburn

Abstract

Monitoring the degree of implementation of widely recommended food environment policies by national governments is an important part of stimulating progress towards better population nutritional health. The Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI) was applied for the second time in New Zealand in 2017 (initially applied in 2014) to measure progress on implementation of widely recommended food environment policies. A national panel of 71 independent (n = 48) and government (n = 23) public health experts rated the extent of implementation of 47 policy and infrastructure support good practice indicators by the Government against international best practice, using an extensive evidence document verified by government officials. Experts proposed and prioritised concrete actions needed to address the critical implementation gaps identified. Inter-rater reliability was good (Gwet's AC2 > 0.8). Approximately half (47%) of the indicators were rated as having 'low' or 'very little, if any' implementation compared to international benchmarks, a decrease since 2014 (60%). A lower proportion of infrastructure support (29%) compared to policy (70%) indicators were rated as having 'low' or 'very little, if any' implementation. The experts recommended 53 actions, prioritising nine for immediate implementation; three of those prioritised actions were the same as in 2014. The vast majority of experts agreed that the Food-EPI is likely to contribute to beneficial policy change and increased their knowledge about food environments and policies. The Food-EPI has the potential to increase accountability of governments to implement widely recommended food environment policies and reduce the burden of obesity and diet-related diseases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 21%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 16 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 20 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 15%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 16 21%
Unknown 18 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 February 2018.
All research outputs
#2,062,018
of 24,307,517 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#268
of 1,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,734
of 449,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#9
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,307,517 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,297 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 449,273 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.